Activism Discussion: Alaska, Arctic, Show Clear Warming Today, Not "Day After Tomorrow"

Alaska, Arctic, Show Clear Warming Today, Not "Day After Tomorrow"
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

I*@economicdemocracy.org
2005-07-22 12:41:02 EST
Barrow, a onetime listening post during the Cold War, is now a
crossroads for research on a warming planet. As scientists race to
understand global warming, which they widely agree is due in part to
human consumption of fossil fuels, the effects are most clearly
discernible in the Earth's polar regions.

"Basically, in terms of climate change, we're getting it fastest and
first," said Richard Glenn, 42, a geologist and Inupiat leader.

...

For Alaskans, warming is a fact on the ground and in the sea. They see
it in things such as the sagging ground above the permafrost - the
frozen subsoil on which their homes and water pipes stand - and the
breakaway sea ice from which seal and bowhead whale hunters have
sometimes had to radio for a rescue.

Average temperatures in Barrow are up 4 degrees [!] over the last 50
years, and as much as 7 degrees in other parts of the Arctic, according
to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The average rise
across the globe is 1.5 degrees.

"There's no question something is going on," says Warren Matumeak, 77,
an Inupiat elder.

"Spring is coming earlier. We see birds up here we've never seen
before. The Earth is changing around us, and we have to figure out how
to adapt," said Matumeak, a former land and wildlife manager for the
North Slope Borough, the rough local equivalent of a county, albeit one
slightly larger than Minnesota.

As the northern polar region warms, some climate models predict what is
dryly called a "positive feedback loop," which could start to warm the
Earth much more quickly.

For Barrow, such a loop spells likely doom, a self-reinforcing cycle in
which melting ice raises surface temperatures, which in turns melts
more ice. That could cause severe coastal erosion and alter the
delicate balance that sustains life on the tundra.

In a worst-case scenario, people would be forced to leave Barrow
altogether, as residents of Shishmaref and Newtok, two smaller coastal
villages in Alaska, have decided to do because of continuing erosion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-barrow22jul22,0,2497651.story?coll=la-home-headlines

...The seabirds have arrived an average of five days earlier >>each<<
decade Divoky has studied them - an indicator of the warmer climate
here, which itself has big, and still not fully understood,
implications for change in the polar food chain.

...One of the many unanswered questions is whether the Arctic will
continue to act as a net "carbon sink" for the Earth, absorbing carbon
into its vast plains of tundra, lakes and bogs that are effectively
freezer-locked much of the year and thus help to act as a sort of
global air conditioner.

If, as many scientists project, the region's ability to do so will be
severely compromised by warming trends, the effects could be felt
across the globe, including storm-surge flooding and erosion in some
areas and, in others, devastating drought caused by heat-exacerbated
evaporation.

Many scientists and world leaders have said there is an urgent need for
international agreements to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, but others,
including the Bush administration, have countered that more study is
needed and that climate changes could prove self-correcting over the
long term.

[Umm, over the _very_ long term I can guarantee you it will be 'self
correcting' ...of course part of the correction could mean ending
civilization
if we keep walking stubbornly in the direction of endless growth in
greenhouse pollution emissions]

At the site - a latticework of boardwalks, sheds and instruments that
in time will have a wireless Internet connection - Tweedie's team of
scientists is studying the effects of varying water levels on the
carbon-storage capacities of the tundra.

.."There are big potential tipping points for the tundra, and we're
hoping to understand a little bit more about those," said Tweedie, a
professor of biology and environmental science and engineering at the
University of Texas, El Paso.


America
2005-07-22 13:07:43 EST


i*o@economicdemocracy.org wrote:
> Barrow, a onetime listening post during the Cold War, is now a
> crossroads for research on a warming planet. As scientists race to
> understand global warming, which they widely agree is due in part to
> human consumption of fossil fuels, the effects are most clearly
> discernible in the Earth's polar regions.
>
> "Basically, in terms of climate change, we're getting it fastest and
> first," said Richard Glenn, 42, a geologist and Inupiat leader.
>
> ...
>
> For Alaskans, warming is a fact on the ground and in the sea. They see
> it in things such as the sagging ground above the permafrost - the
> frozen subsoil on which their homes and water pipes stand - and the
> breakaway sea ice from which seal and bowhead whale hunters have
> sometimes had to radio for a rescue.
>
> Average temperatures in Barrow are up 4 degrees [!] over the last 50
> years, and as much as 7 degrees in other parts of the Arctic, according
> to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The average rise
> across the globe is 1.5 degrees.
>
> "There's no question something is going on," says Warren Matumeak, 77,
> an Inupiat elder.
>
> "Spring is coming earlier. We see birds up here we've never seen
> before. The Earth is changing around us, and we have to figure out how
> to adapt," said Matumeak, a former land and wildlife manager for the
> North Slope Borough, the rough local equivalent of a county, albeit one
> slightly larger than Minnesota.
>
> As the northern polar region warms, some climate models predict what is
> dryly called a "positive feedback loop," which could start to warm the
> Earth much more quickly.
>
> For Barrow, such a loop spells likely doom, a self-reinforcing cycle in
> which melting ice raises surface temperatures, which in turns melts
> more ice. That could cause severe coastal erosion and alter the
> delicate balance that sustains life on the tundra.
>
> In a worst-case scenario, people would be forced to leave Barrow
> altogether, as residents of Shishmaref and Newtok, two smaller coastal
> villages in Alaska, have decided to do because of continuing erosion.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-barrow22jul22,0,2497651.story?coll=la-home-headlines
>
> ...The seabirds have arrived an average of five days earlier >>each<<
> decade Divoky has studied them - an indicator of the warmer climate
> here, which itself has big, and still not fully understood,
> implications for change in the polar food chain.
>
> ...One of the many unanswered questions is whether the Arctic will
> continue to act as a net "carbon sink" for the Earth, absorbing carbon
> into its vast plains of tundra, lakes and bogs that are effectively
> freezer-locked much of the year and thus help to act as a sort of
> global air conditioner.
>
> If, as many scientists project, the region's ability to do so will be
> severely compromised by warming trends, the effects could be felt
> across the globe, including storm-surge flooding and erosion in some
> areas and, in others, devastating drought caused by heat-exacerbated
> evaporation.
>
> Many scientists and world leaders have said there is an urgent need for
> international agreements to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, but others,
> including the Bush administration, have countered that more study is
> needed and that climate changes could prove self-correcting over the
> long term.
>
> [Umm, over the _very_ long term I can guarantee you it will be 'self
> correcting' ...of course part of the correction could mean ending
> civilization
> if we keep walking stubbornly in the direction of endless growth in
> greenhouse pollution emissions]
>
> At the site - a latticework of boardwalks, sheds and instruments that
> in time will have a wireless Internet connection - Tweedie's team of
> scientists is studying the effects of varying water levels on the
> carbon-storage capacities of the tundra.
>
> .."There are big potential tipping points for the tundra, and we're
> hoping to understand a little bit more about those," said Tweedie, a
> professor of biology and environmental science and engineering at the
> University of Texas, El Paso.

Is there an energy king in Washington ready to hand ANWR to his buddies
for free, or a little monetary blowback?????


Hmmmmmmmm, enquiring minds wnat to know...........


Wm James
2005-07-27 18:12:03 EST
On 22 Jul 2005 09:41:02 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:

>Barrow, a onetime listening post during the Cold War, is now a
>crossroads for research on a warming planet. As scientists race to
>understand global warming, which they widely agree is due in part to
>human consumption of fossil fuels, the effects are most clearly
>discernible in the Earth's polar regions.

Nonsense, non-science, and without a shread of evidence.


The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%


William R. James


Wm James
2005-07-27 18:14:03 EST
On 22 Jul 2005 09:41:02 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:

>[Umm, over the _very_ long term I can guarantee you it will be 'self
>correcting' ...of course part of the correction could mean ending
>civilization
>if we keep walking stubbornly in the direction of endless growth in
>greenhouse pollution emissions]

That would be water vapor.


The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
Total 100.000%


Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
peddlers don't want you to know:

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%


William R. James


George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
2005-07-28 01:05:11 EST
On 27 Jul 2005 17:12:03 -0500, Wm James
<*e@spamreaper.org> wrote:

>On 22 Jul 2005 09:41:02 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:
>
>>Barrow, a onetime listening post during the Cold War, is now a
>>crossroads for research on a warming planet. As scientists race to
>>understand global warming, which they widely agree is due in part to
>>human consumption of fossil fuels, the effects are most clearly
>>discernible in the Earth's polar regions.
>
>Nonsense, non-science, and without a shread of evidence.
>
>
>The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
>U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
>expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
>additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
> Methane (CH4) 0.471%
> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
> Total 100.000%
>
>
>Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
>peddlers don't want you to know:
>
>Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
>Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
>concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>
> % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
> Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
> Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%
>
>
>William R. James

Similarly there is compelling evidence the earth is flat. Photos from
satellites prove it - the photo shows the earth is round, just like a
saucer.

I don't know the meaning of your comments, but I do know that the
National Academy of Sciences believes that the earth is warmer, due in
part to human activities, and that the earth is likely to continue to
get warmer.

The National Academy of Sciences appears to me to have as its members
the most talented set of scientists on earth.

A major part of education is learning which experts to rely on

I can't think of a single impressive scientist, one who doesn't teach
at South West Virginia School of Optometry, or somenthing sort of like
that - third tier institutions - who shares your views.

Maybe that's just ignorance on my part. Please educate me if I'm
wrong.

And there are mountains of top scientists who think there is good
reason to think there is something to this global warming stuff.

Why should I believe you rather than people who have won the Nobel
Prize?





Wm James
2005-07-31 19:08:03 EST
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:05:11 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<*r@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:

>On 27 Jul 2005 17:12:03 -0500, Wm James
><wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Jul 2005 09:41:02 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:
>>
>>>Barrow, a onetime listening post during the Cold War, is now a
>>>crossroads for research on a warming planet. As scientists race to
>>>understand global warming, which they widely agree is due in part to
>>>human consumption of fossil fuels, the effects are most clearly
>>>discernible in the Earth's polar regions.
>>
>>Nonsense, non-science, and without a shread of evidence.
>>
>>
>>The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
>>U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
>>expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural
>>additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99.438%
>> Methane (CH4) 0.471%
>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.084%
>> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.007%
>> Total 100.000%
>>
>>
>>Here's the reality you don't understand and the chicken little
>>peddlers don't want you to know:
>>
>>Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
>>Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
>>concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>>
>> % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
>> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
>> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
>> Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
>> Total 100.000% 99.72% 0.28%
>>
>>
>>William R. James
>
>Similarly there is compelling evidence the earth is flat. Photos from
>satellites prove it - the photo shows the earth is round, just like a
>saucer.
>
>I don't know the meaning of your comments, but I do know that the
>National Academy of Sciences believes that the earth is warmer, due in
>part to human activities, and that the earth is likely to continue to
>get warmer.
>
>The National Academy of Sciences appears to me to have as its members
>the most talented set of scientists on earth.
>
>A major part of education is learning which experts to rely on
>
>I can't think of a single impressive scientist, one who doesn't teach
>at South West Virginia School of Optometry, or somenthing sort of like
>that - third tier institutions - who shares your views.
>
>Maybe that's just ignorance on my part. Please educate me if I'm
>wrong.
>
>And there are mountains of top scientists who think there is good
>reason to think there is something to this global warming stuff.
>
>Why should I believe you rather than people who have won the Nobel
>Prize?

Follow the money. Do you believe the "expert scientists" who were on
the payroll of the tobacco companies who found that tobacco wasn't
addictive? They found the results they were paid to find, and any who
didn't want to find those results found themselves working in a
different field. In the global warming hoax, there really aren't any
"scientists" who get their money from sources other than taxpayers
either directly through grants or indirectly through companies who
have to cater to public opinion and or government contracts and or
avoid bad press. Those researchers, like the tobacco researchers,
find what they are paid to find. If they don't play along with the
hoax, they don't get funding and they lose any positions they have in
their field. And those who peddle the hoax are a small minority.
Even if you want to call the frauds "scientists", they are a fraction
of the scintists of the world. Scientists practice the scientific
method, they do not mine data and flat out lie to promote their
preformed conclusions. The data shows no evidence of warming, and
there's no rational argument to support the absurd claim that CO2 has
any effect on earth's climate, certianly not enough to counter the
regulatory actions of water. Anyone claiming CO2 is the major or even
a relevant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere is either lying or
ignorant. That's simply a fact. But it's not "PC" for scientists to
denounce what is perceived as their own. The vast majority of them
rely on universities and political groups (internationally) for
funding and support. Politics dictates they either play along of shut
up because the hoax is useful to socialists, and useful for anyone who
hates the US. If you don't believe that, then try and explain the
Kyoto nonsense! The silly treaty doesn't do squat about CO2
emmissions and isn't even designed to attempt to even address it. It
does nothing but transfer wealth from the western nations to third
world dictators. And it leaves communist dictatorships immune! What
does that tell you?

There are currently over 17,000 people, mostly scientists and
engineers who have signed this petition:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

William R. James

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron